Tom Trottier wrote
> Perhaps we Oly users shouldn't be so sanguine about the quality of
> our lenses... [data from photodo]
There are some other anomalies in the tests there:
Nikkor 105/1.8 beats the Nikkor 105/2.5, widely regarded as
the sharpest Nikkor ever built.
Nikkor 300/4.5 (old technology like the Zuiko and Contax),
scores same as the Nikkor 300/4.5 IF ED. The latter should
be much better wide open.
Hasselblad Planar CF 80/2.8 (standard lens for the Blad)
scores absurdly low.
Generally Pentax, Contax and Minolta lenses did well and
Nikkors and Zuikos did badly. Except for Nikkors, ranking
within a brand looked plausible.
It's unclear whether film and bodies were used in the
tests. If so, the ranking could have been influenced by
vibration. Pentax and Minolta are well known for good
damping, Nikons vary IME, the Blad has that thumping
great mirror; and Olympus could be better.
Given that all the tests are conducted by a single person -
an ex-pro photographer, not an applied physicist - I would
question the methodology. Nowhere does it say what that was.
Oh, and the site itself is buggy and requires a 19" monitor
for those floating windows with the Hasselblad ads (it
was constructed by the tester's son). Elsewhere in the site
you will find some comments on large v. small formats that
no-one much agrees with. Caveat surfor.
Testing one new sample of a lens doesn't tell you anything
about sample variation or whether the lens wears out quickly
and turns into a dog after a few months.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|